
? 



ecc 



k of 



NMiUU-m H- 



om tine. Army^Bill , \$5&. 



u^ 




Glass i ■£> % 5 

Book > &?I5 



V 



THE ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES NOT TO BE EMPLOYED AS A POLICE TO EN- 
FORCE THE LAWS OF THE CONQUERORS OF KANSAS. 



SPEECH 



OF 



WILLIAM H. SEWARD, 



ON 



THE ^.RMY BILL. 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, AUGUST 1, IB: 



WASHINGTON, D. C 

BUELL & BLANCHARD, PRINT .!tS. 

1856. 



SPEECH OF MR. SEWARD. 



IN SENATE, AUGUST 7, 1856. 



Mr. President: This is a bill appropriating 
about twelve millions of dollars, to defray the 
expenses of the military establishment of the 
United States, for the ensuing fiscal year. Its 
form and effect are those which distinguish a 
general Appropriation bill for the support of the 
army, such as is annually passed by Con- 
gress. Only one exception to it, as it came to 
the Senate from the House of Representatives, 
has been taken here. It contains what is prac- 
tically an inhibition of the employment of the 
army of the United States, by the President, to 
enforce the so-called laws of the alleged Legis- 
lature of the Territory of Kansas. The Senate 
regards that inhibition as an obnoxious feature, 
and has, by what is called an amendment, pro- 
posed to strike it from the bill, overruling therein 
my vote ; and the Senate now proposes to pass 
the bill thus altered here, and to remit it to the 
House of Representatives, for concurrence in the 
alteration. In the hope that that House will insist 
on the prohibition which ha3 been disapproved 
here, and that the Senate will, in case of conflict, 
ultimately recede, I shall vote against the pas- 
sage of the bill in its present shape. 

In submitting my reasons for this course, I 
have little need to tread in the several courses 
of argument which have been opened by dis- 
tinguished Senators, who have gone before me 
in this debate. Certainly, however, I shall at- 
tempt to emulate the examples of the honorable 
Senators from Virginia and South Carolina, 
[Mr. Hunter and Mr. Butler,] by avoiding re- 
marks in any degree personal, because, on an 
occasion of such grave importance, although I 



may not be able to act with wisdom, I am sure 
I can^ so far practice self-control as to debate 
with decency, and deport myself with dignity. 
I shall neither defend nor arraign any political 
party, because I should vote on this occasion 
just as I am now going to vote, if not merely 
one of the parties, but all of the parties in the 
country, stood arrayed against me. 

I shall not reply to any of the criticisms which 
have been bestowed upon the inhibition pro- 
posed by the House of Representatives, nor shall 
I attempt to reconcile that inhibition with other 
bills, which have been passed by the House 
of Representatives, and sent to this House for 
concurrence. I shall not even stop to vindicate 
my own consistency of action, in regard to the 
Territory of Kansas; because, first, I am not 
to assume that what now seem3 an opening 
disagreement between the Senate and the House 
of Representatives, will ripen into a case of decided 
conflict ; and because, secondly, if it shall so ripen, 
then there will be time for argument at every 
stage of the disagreement; while its entire 
progress and consummation will necessarily be 
searchingly reviewed, throughout the length and 
breadth of the country, and the conflict itself 
will thereafter stand a landmark for all time in 
the history of the Republic. I shall endeavor tt> 
confine myself closely to the questions which 
are immediately involved, at this hour, in a de- 
bate which, in the event which has been appre- 
hended, will survive all existing interests and all 
living statesmen. 

The prohibition of the employment of the army, 
to enforce alleged statutes in Kansas, which the 



Hou3e of Representatives proposes, and which 
the Senate disapproves, grows out of the conflict 
of opinion which divides the Senate unequally, 
which divides the House of Representatives itself 
nearly equally, and which, if the prohibition 
itself expresses the opinion of a majority of that 
House, separates it from the Senate, and from the 
President of the United States. It is manifestly 
a conflict which divides the country by a parallel 
of latitude. In this conflict, one party maintains, 
as I do, that the legislation, and the Territorial 
Legislature itself, of Kansas, are absolutely void. 
The other party, on the contrary, insists that the 
legislation and Legislature of the Territory of 
Kansas are valid, and must remain so until they 
shall be constitutionally superseded or abrogated. 
The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Hunter] argues 
that the act of the House of Representatives, in 
inserting the prohibition in this bill, is revolu- 
tionary, and that persistence in it would effect a 
change of the Constitution of the Government. 
I refrain from arguing that question elaborately 
now, because, while I am satisfied, from my knowl- 
edge of the temper and habit of the Senate, that it 
is likely enough to adhere to the course which it 
has indicated, I am at the same time by no means 
so certain that the House of Representatives will 
not ultimately recede from the ground which, by 
the act of a bare majority, at all times unreliable 
during the present session, it has assumed. I 
speak with the utmost respect towards the House 
of Representatives, and with entire confidence in 
the patriotic motives of all its members ; but, I 
must confess that, in all questions concerning 
Freedom and Slavery in the United States, I have 
seen Houses of Representatives, when brought 
into conflict with the Senate of the United States, 
recede too often and retreat too far to allow me 
to assume that in this case the present House of 
Representatives will maintain the high position 
it has assumed with firmness and perseverance 
to the end. I saw a House of Representatives, 
in 1850, which was delegated and practically 
pledged to prohibit the extension of Slavery 
within the unorganized Territories of the United 
States, then newly acquired from Mexico, refuse to 
perform that great duty, and enter into a compro- 
mise, which, however intended, practically led to 
the abandonment of all those Territories to uni- 
versal desecration by Slavery. I saw a House of 
Representatives, in 1854, forget the sacred rever- 
ence for Freedom of those by whom it was consti- 
tuted, and abrogate the time-honored law under 
which the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska 
had until that time remained safe, amid the 



wreck which followed the unfortunate compro- 
mise of 1850, and thus prepare the way for that 
invasion by Slavery of all that yet remained for 
the sway of Freedom in the ancient domain of 
Louisiana, which has since taken place in Kansas. 
Sir, ever since I adopted for myself the policy 
of opposing the spread of Slavery in the train of 
our national banner, consecrated to equal and uni- 
versal Freedom, my hopes have been fixed, not on 
existing Presidents, Senates, or Houses of Repre- 
sentatives, but on future Presidents and future 
Congresses — and my hopes and faith grow 
stronger and stronger, as each succeeding Presi- 
dent, Senate, and House of Representatives, fails 
to adopt and establish that policy, so eminently 
constitutional and conservative. My hopes and 
my faith thus grow on disappointment, because I 
see that by degrees, which are marked, although 
the progress seems slow, my countrymen, who 
alone create Presidents and Congresses, are com- 
ing to apprehend the wisdom and justice of that 
beneficent policy, and to accept it. The short- 
comings of the present House of Representatives 
do not discourage me. I do not even hold that 
body responsible. I know how, in the very midst 
of the canvass in which its members were 
elected', the public mind was misled, and diverted 
to the discussion of false and fraudulent issues 
concerning the principles and policy of the 
Church of Rome, and the temper, disposition, 
and conduct, of aliens incorporated into the 
Republic But although I hold the present 
House of Representatives excusable, I must, 
nevertheless, in assigning its true character, be 
allowed to say of it, that it is like the moon, 
which presents a broad surface, all smooth and 
luminous when seen at a distance, but covered 
with rough and dark mountains when brought 
near to the eye by the telescope. I shall vote, 
therefore, on this occasion, with the House of 
Representatives, against a majority of the Senate, 
careless whether that House itself shall, like 
other Houses of Representatives which have 
gone before it, renounce and repudiate its own 
decision which I thus sustain, and complaisantly 
range itself with the Senate and the President of 
the United States, against myself and those Sen- 
ators who shall have gone with me to its support. 
Mr. President, the subject under consideration 
is legitimately within the jurisdiction of Con- 
gress, and consequently within the jurisdiction 
of the House of Representatives. There must 
be authority somewhere to decide whether the 
Territorial Legislature of Kansas is a legal and 
constitutional body, and whether its statutes are 



6 



valid. The President of the United States has 
no authority to decide those questions definitely, 
because the decision involves an act of sovereign 
legislation within the constitutional sphere of 
Congress. The Judiciary cannot decisively de- 
termine those questions, because their own deter- 
minations, in such a case, may be modified or 
reversed, and set aside, by a constitutional legis- 
lative enactment, and because the Judiciary has 
no power to apply the means necessary to give 
effect to its decisions. 

The subject is an actual Government of the 
Territory of Kansas, to be established and main- 
tained by constitutional laws. All legislative 
power over Kansas, as well as all legislative pow- 
er whatever permitted by the Constitution of the 
United States, is vested in Congress, and of course 
in the House of Representatives, co-ordinately 
with the Senate, and subject to a veto ef the 
President. The House of Representatives may 
constitutionally pass a bill abrogating the pre- 
tended legislation and Legislature of Kansas, or 
declaring them to be already absolutely void. 
The greater includes the less. The House of 
Representatives may therefore lawfully pass a 
bill prohibiting the employment of the army of 
Jhe United States in executing laws in Kansas, 
which it deems pernicious, no matter by whom 
those laws were made. 

Since the House of Representatives has power 
to pass such a bill distinctly, it has power, 
also, to place an equivalent prohibition in any 
bill which it has constitutional power to pass. 
And so it has a constitutional right to place the 
prohibition in the annual army appropriation 
bill. 

I grant that this mode of reaching the object 
proposed is in some respects an unusual one, 
and in some respects an inconvenient one. It 
is not therefore, however, an unconstitutional 
one, or even necessarily a wrong one. 

It is a right one, if it i3 necessary to effect the 
object desired, and if that object is one that 
i3 in 'itself just, and eminently important to the 
peace and happiness of the country, or to the 
security of the liberties of the people. The 
House of Representatives, moreover, is entitled 
to judge and determine, for itself, whether the 
proceeding is thus necessary, and whether the 
object of it is thus important. It is true, that 
the Senate may dissent from the House, and re- 
fuse to concur in the prohibition. In that case, 
each of the two Houses exercises an independent 
right of its own, and upon its own proper re- 
sponsibility to the people. If the conflict shall 



continue to the end, and the bill therefore shall 
fail, the people will decide between the two 
Houses, in the elections which will follow, and 
they will take care to bring them to an agree- 
ment in harmony with the popular decision. 

The proceeding in the present case is thus ne- 
cessary, and its object is thus important. Pre- 
tended but invalid laws are enacted by usurpa- 
tion, and enforced by the President of the United 
States, in the Territory of Kansas, with the terror 
if not with an actual application of the military 
arm of the Government. At least, this is the 
case assumed by the House of Representatives. 
The case is altogether a new one. It has not 
occurred before. It has never even been sup- 
posed possible that such a case could happen in 
a Territory of the United States. The idea has 
never before entered into the mind of an Ameri- 
can statesmen, that citizens of one State could 
with armed force enter any other State or Ter- 
ritory, and by fraud or force usurp its govern- 
ment, and establish a tyranny over its people, 
much less that a President of the United States 
would be found to sanction such a subversion 
of State authority or of Federal authority ; and 
still less, that a President thus sanctioning it 
would employ the standing army to maintain 
the odious usurpation and tyranny. 

Sir, the mere fact, in this case, that the army is 
required to be employed to execute alleged laws 
in Kansas, is enough to raise a presumption that 
those laws are either wrong in principle or des- 
titute of constitutional authority, and ought not 
to be executed. 

The Territory of Kansas, although not a State, 
is or ought to be, nevertheless, a civil community, 
with a republican system of government. In 
other words, it is de jure, and ought to be de 
facto, a Republic — an American Republic, ex- 
isting under and by virtue of the Constitution 
of the United States. If the laws which are to 
be executed there are really the statutes of such 
a republican government truly existing there, 
then those laws were made by the people of Kan- 
sas by their own voluntary act. According to 
the theory of our Government, these laws will 
be acquiesced in by that people, and executed 
with their own consent against all offenders, bv 
means of merely civil police, without the aid of 
the army of the United States. The army of the 
United States is not a mere institution of domes- 
tic police ; nor is it a true or proper function of 
the army to execute the domestic laws of the sev- 
eral States and Territories. Its legitimate and 
proper functions are to repel foreign invasion, 



and suppress insurrections of the native Indian 
tribes. It is only an occasional and incidental 
function of that army, to suppress insurrections 
of citizens seldom expected to occur. 

This Capitol is surrounded by a national me- 
tropolis, and its streets, lanes, and alleys, are 
doubtless filled with misery and guilt, adequate 
to the generation of all sorts of crimes. Yet the 
laws prescribed for municipal government within 
the District of Columbia are executed without 
the aid of the army of the United States. Neither 
House of Congress, nor the Common Council of 
Washington, nor the Common Council of George- 
town, nor the President of the United States, nor 
the Marshal of the District of Columbia, nor yet 
the Mayors of either of those cities, nor any court 
within the District, is attended by any armed 
force or detachment, or protected even by an 
armed sentinel. 

Why is this so ? It is because the people ac- 
quiesce, and the laws execute themselves. This 
case of the District of Columbia is the strongest 
which can be presented against the principle for 
which I contend, for the people of the District 
are actually disfranchised, out of regard to the 
security of the Federal Government. 

Look into the States — into Maryland on one side 
of the Federal Capital, and into Virginia on the 
other ; into Delaware as you ascend northward, 
into North Carolina as you descend southward, 
into Pennsylvania and into South Carolina, into 
New Jersey and injto Georgia, even into Maine and 
into Texas ; go eastward — go westward, through- 
out all the States, throughout even the Territories, 
Minnesota, Utah, Washington, Oregon, and New 
Mexico — everywhere throughout the Republic, 
from the Gulf of St. Lawrence to the Gulf of 
Mexico, from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific 
ocean — everywhere, except in Kansas, the people 
are dwelling in peaceful submission to the laws 
which they themselves have established, free from 
any intrusion of the army of the United States. 
The time was, and that not long ago, when a 
proposition to employ the standing army of the 
United States as a domestic police would have 
been universally denounced as a premature reve- 
lation of a plot, darkly contrived in the chambers 
of conspiracy, to subvert the liberties of the peo- 
ple, and to overthrow the Republic itself. 

The Republic stands upon a fundamental 
principle, that the people, in the exercise of equal 
rights, will establish only just and equal laws, 
and that their own free and enlightened public 
opinion is the only legitimate reliance for the 
maintenance and execution of such laws. This 



principle is not even peculiar to ourselves — it lies 
at the foundation of the government of every 
free people on earth. It is public opinion, not 
the Imperial army, that executes the laws of the 
realm in England, Scotland, and Ireland. When- 
ever France is free, it is public opinion that ex- 
ecutes the laws of her republican legislature. 
It is public opinion that executes the laws in all 
the Cantons of Switzerland. The British consti- 
tution is quite as jealous of standing armies as a 
police, as our own. Government there, indeed, 
maintains standing armies, as it does a' great naval 
force, but it employs the one, as it does the other, 
exclusively for defence or for conquest against 
foreign States. Fearful lest the armed power of 
the State might be turned against the people to 
enforce obnoxious edicts or statutes, the British 
constitution forbids that any regular army 
whatever shall be tolerated, on any pretence. 
The considerable military force which is. main- 
tained in different and distant parts of the 
Empire, only exists by a suspension of that 
part of the constitution, which suspension is 
renewed by Parliament from year to year, 
and never for more than one year at a time. 
Civil liberty, and a standing army for th? 
purposes of civil police, have never yet stood 
together, and never can stand together. If 
I am to choose, sir, between upholding laws, 
in any part of this Republic, which cannot be 
maintained without a standing army, or relin- 
quishing the laws themselves, I give up the laws 
at once, by whomsoever they are made, and by 
whatever authority ; for either our system of 
government is radically wrong, or such laws are 
unjust, unequal, and pernicious. 

Such is the presumption against the pretended 
laws of Kansas, which arises out of the propo- 
sition in debate. I shall not, however, in so grave 
a case, leave my argument to rest upon mere 
presumption. Listen to me while I recite some of 
the principal statutes of the Territorial Legisla- 
ture of Kansas, which the Senate, differing from 
the House of Representatives, preposes to enforce 
at the point of the bayonet against citizens of the 
United States : 

" No person who is conscientiously opposed to the holding 
of slave?, or who does not admit th°. right to hold slaves 
in this Territory, shall be a juror in a'iy cause in which 
the right to hold any person in slavery is involvrd, nor in 
any cause in which any injury done to. or committed by. 
any slave, is in issue, nor in any criminal proceeding for 
the violation of any law enacted for the protection of slave 
property, and for the punishment of crime committed 
against the right to such property." 

Here is an edict which subverts that old Saxon 



Institution, which is essential and indispensable, 
not only in all republican systems of government, 
but even in every free State, whatever may be 
the form of its government. The question has been 
asked a thousand time3, Why does the republican 
system fail in Spanish America? The answer is 
truly given as often, that the republican system 
fails there, because the trial by jury has never 
existed in Spanish America, and cannot be intro- 
duced there. 

Lend your ear, if you please, while I repeat 
another of these statutes of the Territory of 
Kansas : 

" All officers elected or appointed under any existing: 
or subsequently-enacted laws of this Territory, shall 
take and subscribe the following oath 'of office: 'I, 

, do solemnly swear, upon the holy Evangelists of 

Almighty God, that I will support the Constitution of the 
United States, and that I will support and sustain the pro- 
visions of an act entitled "An act to organize the Terri- 
tories of Nebraska and Kansas," and the provisions of the 
law of the United States commonly known as the " Fu- 
gitive Slave Law," and faithfully and impartially, and to 
the best of my ability, demean myself in the discharge of 
my duties in the office of ; so help me God.' " 

Here is an edict which establishes a test oath, 
based on political opinion, and, by disfranchising 
one class of citizens, devolves the government 
upon another class, and thus subverts that prin- 
ciple of equality, without which no truly repub- 
lican government has ever existed, or ever can 
exist. 

Excuse me, Senators, for calling to your notice 
a third chapter in the Territorial code of Kansas : 

"If any free person, by speaking or by writing, assert or 
maintain that persons have not the right to holi slaves in 
Ms Territory, or shall introduce into this Territory, print, 
publish, write, circulate, or cause to be introduced into 
this Territory, written, printed, published, or circulated, 
in this Territory, any book, paper, magazine, pamphlet, 
or circular, containing any denial of the right of persons 
to hold slaves in this Territory, such person shall be deem- 
ed guilty of felony, and punished by imprisonment at 
hard labor for a term of not less than two years." 

"If any person print, write, introduce into, publish, or 
tirculate, or cause to be brought into, printed, written, 
published, or circulated, or shall knowingly aid or Assist 
in bringing into, printing, publishing, or circulating, with- 
in this Territory, any book, paper, pamphlet, magazine, 
handbill, or circular, containing any statements, argu- 
ments, opinion, sentiment, doctrine, advice, or innuendo, 
calculated to produce a disorderly, dangerous, or rebel- 
lious disaffection among the slaves in this Territory, or to 
induce such slaves to escape from the service of their 
masters, or to resist their authority, he shall be guilty of 
felony, and be punished by imprisonment and hard'labor 
«'or a term not less than five years." 

Sir, ever since the debate about the extension 
of Slavery in the Territories of the United States 
began, I have from year to year, from month to 
month, and sometimes even from day to day, in 



this place, and at other posts of public duty, 
spoken, written, printed, published, and circula- 
ted speeches, books, and papers, which construct- 
ively would be pronounced felonious, if such a law 
as this had been in force at the place where that 
duty was performed. I have not hesitated, in the 
spirit of a free man, and, so far as I can claim 
such characters, under the responsibilities of a 
statesman and a Christian, to scatter broadcast 
over the land, and even throughout the Territory 
of Kansas itself, statements, opinions, and senti- 
ments, which, though designed for a purpose dif- 
ferent from that mentioned in this edict, I doubt 
not would by prejudiced judicial construction be 
held to fall within it3 inhibition. Whatever other 
Senators may choose to do, I shall not direct the 
President of the United States to employ a stand- 
ing army in destroying the fruits of Freedom 
which spring from seeds I have conscientiously 
sown with my own free hand. This statute, sir, 
if so you insist on calling it, subverts the liberty 
of the press and the liberty of speech. Where on 
earth is there a free Government where the press 
is shackled and speech is strangled ? When tho 
Republic of France was subverted by the First 
Consul, what else did he do, but shackle the press 
and stifle speech. AVhen the second Napoleon re- 
stored the Empire on the ruins of the later Repub- 
lic of France, what else did he do, than to shackle 
the press and strangle debate ? When Santa Anna 
seized the Government of Mexico, and converted 
it into a dictatorship, what more had he to do 
than shackle the press and stifle political debate ? 
Behold, Senators, another of these statutes. 
In the chapter which treats of the writ of habeas 
corpus we have this limitation : 

" No negro or mulatto, held as a slave within this Ter- 
ritory, or lawfully arrested as a fugitive from service from 
another State or Territory, shall be discharged, nor shall 
his right of freedom be had, under the provisions of tbia 
act." 

This is an edict, which suspends the writ of ha- 
beas corpus. It relates indeed to a degraded clas3 
of society, but still the writ which is taken away 
from that class is the writ of habeas corpus, and 
those who are to be deprived of it by the edict 
may be freemen. The State that begins with de- 
nying the habeas corpus to the humblest and 
most obscure of freemen, will not be long in reach - 
ing a more indiscriminate proscription. 

It ought to be sufficient objection here, against 
all these statutes, that they conflict with the Con- 
stitution of the United States, the highest law 
recognised in this place. I myself denounce 
them for that reason, as I denounce them also 



8 



because they are repugnant to the laws of nature, 
as recognised by nearly all civilized States. 

Pardon, I pray you, Senators, the prolixity o.f 
the next chapter, which I extract from the Kan- 
sas code : 

" Every person who may be sentenced by any court of 
competent jurisdiction, under any law in force within this 
Territory, to punishment by confinement and hard labor, 
shall be deemed a convict, and shall immediately, under 
the charge of the keeper of such jail or public prison, or 
under the charge of such person as the keeper of such jail 
or public prison may select, be put to hard labor, as in the 
first section of this act specified, (to wit, 'on the streets, 
roads, public buildings, or other public works of the Terri- 
tory '_[Sec. 1, page 146 ;] and such keeper or other person, 
having charge of such convict, shall cause such convict, 
while engaged at such labor, to be securely confined by 
a chain, six feel in length, of not less than four-sixteenths 
nor more than three-eighths of an inch links, with around 
ball of iron, of not less than four nor more than six inches 
in diameter, attached, which chain shall be securely fast- 
ened to the ankle of such convict with a strong lock and' 
key; and such keeper, or other person, having charge of 
such convict, may, if necessary, confine such convict.while 
so engaged at hard labor, by other chains, or other means, 
in his discretion, so as to keep such convict secure, and 
prevent his escape ; and when there shall be two or more 
eonvicts under the charge of such keeper, or other person, 
such convicts shall he fastened together by strong chains, 
wi h strong locks and keys, during the time such convicts 
shall be engaged in hard labor without the walls of any 
.tail or prison." 

I have devoted, heretofore, no unimportant 
part of my life to mitigating the severity of 
penal codes. The Senate of the United States 
now informs me, that if I desire the privilege of 
voting for this bill, which is designed to main- 
tain the army of the United States in its integ- 
rity, I must consent to send that army into the 
Territory of Kansas, to fasten chains of iron six 
feet long, with balls of iron four inches in di- 
ameter, with strong locks, upon the limbs of of- 
fenders guilty of speaking, printing, and pub- 
lishing, principles and opinions subversive of the 
system of Slavery. 

Sir, I have no excessive tenderness in regard 
to taking life or liberty as a forfeiture to the 
majesty of the laws, for the invasion of the 
peace and safety of society. Yet I do say, 
nevertheless, that I regard chains and balls, and 
all such implements and instruments of Sla- 
very, with a detestation so profound, thai I 
will 60oner take chains upon my own frame, and 
wear them through what may remain of my own 
pilgrimage here, than impose them, even where 
punishment is deserved, upon the limbs of my 
fellow-men. I cannot consent to go back- 
ward, and restore barbarism to the penal code of 
the United States, even for the sake of an appro- 



priation to maintain the army of the United 
States for a single year. 

The Kansas code rises, as you advance through 
it, to a climax of inhumanity. Here is the next 
chapter : 

" If any person shall aidor assistin enticing, decoying, 
or persuading, or carrying away, or sending out of this 
Territory, any slave belonging to anotheT, -with intent to 
procure or effect the freedom of such slave, or with intent 
to deprive the owner thereof of the services of such slave, 
he shall be adjudged guilty of grand larceny, and on con- 
viction thereof shall suffer death, or be imprisoned at hard 
labor for not less than ten years." 

Pray tell me, Senators, what you think of that. 
This statute has been promulgated in Kansas, 
a Territory of the United States. It can have 
become a law there only, directly or indirectly, 
through the exercise of the legislative power of 
the Congress of the United State3. The Con- 
stitution of the United States confers upon Con- 
gress no power whatever to consign any human 
being to a condition of bondage or slavery to 
another human being, but, on the contrary, 
prohibits the exercise of a power so inhuman and 
barbarous. 

The Constitution of the United States, conse- 
quently, confers on Congress no power, directly or 
indirectly, to make it a crime in one man to per- 
suade another, reduced to bondage or slavery, to 
seek his freedom. I repudiate this pretended 
law, therefore, and I will not consent to send the 
army of the United States to Kansas to exe- 
cute it. 

Mr. MASON. Will the Senator allow me to 
ask him whether the law to which he has just 
adverted is not a law of the State of Missouri, 
adopted by the Territory of Kansas ? ' 

Mr. SEWARD. I presume it is, but I do not 
know that fact. 

Mr. MASON. Does not the Senator know the 
fact, that it is part of the body of laws of 
the State of Missouri, adopted by the Territory 
of Kansas? 

Mr. SEWARD. I say I presume it to be so ; 
I do not know the fact. Sir, I am here asked, 
while voting twelve millions to support the Fed- 
eral army, to make it a crime against the United 
States, punishable with death, to persuade a slave 
to escape from bondage, and to command the 
army to execute that punishment. I cannot do 
that! 

Mr. REID. I dislike to interrupt the Senator, 
but there is one point on which I desire to know 
his ©pinion, for it is important, certainly, to one 
section of the Union. The course of the. Sen- 
ator's argument seems to incline to the opinion. 



9 



cm his part, that it i3 no crime to persuade or to 
entice a negro slave to run away from his master. 
Is that the opinion of the Senator from New 
York? 

Mr. SEWARD. There is no Senator for whom 
I have more respect than the honorable Senator 
from North Carolina, but I have a rule — which is, 
to adhere to my own line of argument. I am de- 
fending my vote, on a bill before the Senate. I 
shall go into the discussion of no collateral ques- 
tion, further than it is necessarily involved in 
the argument which the occasion requires. I 
call your attention to another of these enact- 
ments : 

• ; It any person shall entice, decoy, or carry away out 
of this Territory, any slave belonging- to another, with 
intent to deprive the owner thereof of the services of 
such slave, or with intent to effect or procure the freedom 
of such slave, he shall be adjudged guilty of grand lar- 
ceny, and, on conviction thereof, shall suffer death, or 
he imprisoned at hard labor for not less tlian ten years." 

There is no laiteny of property, of any kind, 
which in my judgment demands punishment by 
death. Certainly, I shall not agree to a law 
which shall inflict that extreme punishment for 
constructive larceny, in a case where it is at 
least a disputed point in ethics, whether the of- 
fence is malum in se. 

Here is another chapter : 

■• If any slave shall commit petit larceny, or shall 
steal any neat cattle, sheep, or hog, or be guilty of any 
misdemeanor, or other offence punishable under the pro- 
visions of this act only by fine or imprisonment in a coun- 
ty jail, or by both such fine and imprisonment, he shall, 
instead of such punishment, be punished, if a male, by 
stripes on his bare back not exceeding thirty-nine, or if a 
female, by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding 
twenty-one days, or by stripes not exceeding twenty-one, 
at the discretion of the justice. " 

With repentance and atonement, Mr. President, 
1 may hope to be forgiven for inflicting blows 
upon the person of a fellow-man, equal in strength 
and vigor to myself. I should have no hope to 
be forgiven, much less to retain my own self- 
respect, if, on any occasion, under any circum- 
stances, or upon any pretext, I should ever con- 
sent to apply, or authorize another to apply, a 
lash to the naked back of a weak, defenceless, 
helpless woman. 

Sir, call these provisions which I have recited 
by what name you will — edicts, ordinances, or 
statutes — they are the laws which the House of 
Representatives says shall not be enforced in Kan- 
sas by the army of the United States. I give 
my thanks to the House of Representatives, sin- 
cere and hearty thanks. I salute the House of 
Representatives with the homage of my profound 



respect. It has vindicated the Constitution or 
my country ; it has vindicated the cause of 
Freedom ; it has vindicated the cause of human- 
ity. Even though it shall tamely rescind this 
vindication to-morrow, when it shall come into 
conflict with the Senate of the United States, 
yet I shall nevertheless regard this proviso, 
standing in that case only for a single day, as an 
omen of more earnest and firm legislation in that 
great forum. When, hereafter, one shall be look- 
ing through the pages of statute laws affecting the 
African race, for a period of more than a quar- 
ter of a century, he will regard this ephem- 
eral recognition of the equality of men with the 
affection and hope which the traveller feels when 
approaching a green spot in the deserts of Arabia. 
It must be other Senators, not I, who shall con- 
sent to blast this oasis, and disappoint all the 
hopes that already are bursting the bud upon it. 

Mr. President, although the fact is clear, that 
the pretended laws in Kansas can only be xe- 
cuted by armed force, and therefore are ob\.„x- 
ious to a presumption that they are founded in 
injustice ; and although those laws, upo*- earch- 
ing examination, are found to be sub r e.:ive of 
the Constitution, and in conflict with all the sen- 
timents of humanity, the whole case of the House 
of Representatives has nevertheless not yet been 
stated. The proceedings which have hitherto 
taken place in executing those laws have been 
unconstitutional in their character, and attended 
with grinding oppression and cruel severity. 
The Senator from Virginia has asked me, whether 
such laws do not exist in Missouri. 

Mr. MASON. The Senator from Virginia asked 
you whether a law on which you were comment- 
ing was not a law of the State of Missouri, copied 
by the Territory of Kansas. 

Mr. SEWARD. Take the question in the shape 
in which the honorable Senator repeats it. I 
suppose such laws exist in that State, and in 
other States. I have this to say for those 
States, and for the United States — that a Federal 
standing army has never been employed in exe- 
cuting such laws in those States. And how 
have these atrocious laws been executed in 
Kansas ? The marshal of the Territory, an offi- 
cer dependent on the President of the United 
States, has enrolled as a volunteer militia, at the 
expense of the Federal Treasury, an armed band 
of confessed propagandists of Slavery from other 
States ; and this so-called militia, but really un- 
constitutional regular force, has been converted 
into a. posse comitatus to execute these atrocious 
statutes by intimidation, or by force, as the na- 



10 



tare of the resistance encountered seemed to re- 
quire. This has been the form of Executive ac- 
tion. What has been the conduct of the Judicial 
department? Courts of the United States have 
permitted grand juries to find and have main- 
tained indictments unknown to the laws of the 
United States, to the common law, and to the 
laws of all civilized countries — an indictment of 
a tavern as a nuisance, because the political opin- 
ions of its lodgers were obnoxious ; an indictment 
of a bridge over a river for a nuisance, because 
those who passed over it were of opinion that the 
establishment of Slavery in the Territory was in- 
jurious to its prosperity ; indictments even of print- 
ing presses as nuisances, because the political opin- 
ions which they promulgated were favorable to the 
establishment of a Free State Government. Either 
with a warrant from the courts, or without a war- 
rant, but with their connivance, bands of soldiers, 
with arms belonging to the United States, and 
enrolled under its flag, and directed by its mar'- 
sl J i^!£ombining with other bands of armed in- 
vaders from without the Territory, and without 
even t ? ~s pretence of a trial, much less of a judg- 
ment, v f abated the alleged nuisance of a tav- 
ern by _ felling it to the ground, and the pre- 
tended nuisances of the free presses by casting 
type and presses and compositors' desks into the 
Kansas river. 

Moreover, when the citizens, whose obedience 
to these laws was demanded, sought relief in the 
only constitutional way which remained open to 
i them, by establishing conditionally, and subject 
to the assent of Congress, to be afterwards ob- 
tained, a State Government, provisional Execu- 
tive officers, and a provisional Legislature, in- 
dictments for constructive treason were found in 
the same courts, by packed grand juries, against 
these provisional Executive officers, and a detach- 
ment of the army of the United States entered 
the Legislative Halls, and expelled the represent- 
atives of the people from their seats. During the 
intense heat of this almost endless summer, a 
regiment of Federal cavalry performs its evolutions 
in ranging over the prairies of Kansas, holding in 
its camp, as prisoners under martial law, without 
bail or mainprize, not less than ten citizens, thus 
indicted in those Federal courts for the pretended 
crime of constructive treason. The penalty of 
treason, under the laws of the United States, is 
death. What chance for justice attends those 
citizens? I will show you. The judge who is 
to try them procured the indictments against 
them, by a charge to a packed grand jury, in these 
words : 



"This Territory was organized by an act of Congress, 
and, so far, its authoriiy is from the United States. It has 
a Legislature, elected in pursuance, of that organic act. 
This Legislature, being an instrument of Congress by 
which it governs the Territory, has passed laws. These 
laws, therefore, are of United States authority and making: 
and all that, resist these laws, resist the power and author- 
ity of the United States, and are therefore guilty of high 
treason. 

" Now, gentlemen, if you find that any persons have re- 
sisted these laws, then you must, under your oaths, find 
bil's against such persons for high treason. If you find 
that no such resistance has been made, but that combina- 
tions have been formed for the purpose of resisting then*) 
and individuals of influence and notoriety have been aid- 
ing and abetting in such combinations, then must you still 
find bills for constructive treason," &c. 

What will it avail their defence, before such a 
court and such a judge, that the Constitution 
of the United States declares, directly and ex- 
plicitly, that treason against the United States 
shall consist only in levying war against them, 
or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid 
and comfort. - 

Thus you see, Senators, that the Executive 
authority, not content with simple oppression, 
has seized upon the Judiciary, and corrupt- 
ed and degraded it, for the purpose of execu- 
ting these pretended and intolerable laws of 
Kansas. The judge who presides in the Territo- 
rial courts is a creature of the President of the 
United States, and holds his office by the tenure 
of Executive pleasure. While the sword of 
Executive power is converted in Kansas into an 
assassin's dagger, the ermine of Justice is stained 
with the vilest of contaminations. What cause 
is there for surprise, then, in the administration of 
Government in Kansas, under such laws, and in 
a manner so intolerable, that a civil war has been 
brought about by affidavits, an armed force has 
been employed in executing process for contempt, 
and an unauthorized and illegal detachment is 
enrolled in the service of the United States, and 
employed in abating domestic, social, and politi- 
cal institutions, under the name of nuisances? 
What wonder is it that a city has been besieged 
with fire and sword, because it was supposed to 
contain within its dwellings individuals who de- 
nied the legality and obligation of the pretended 
laws ? What wonder that a State, a provisional 
State, erected in harmony with the Constitution 
and with custom, and_ waiting our assent for ad- 
mission into the Union, has been subverted by 
a mingled process of indictments and martial 
demonstrations against constructive treason? 
Who can fail to see, through the cloud which 
Executive usurpation and Judicial misconstruc- 
tion have raised, for the purpose of cover- 



11 



ing these transactions in Kansas, that it is de- 
votion to Freedom which alone constitutes any 
crime in that Territory, in the view of its judges, 
its ministerial officers, and of the President of 
the United States ? And that that crime, in what- 
ever it may be committed, in their judgment, 
constitutes treason ? Who does not see that de- 
votion to Freedom, applauded in all the world 
besides, in Kansas is a crime to be expiated 
with death ? 

I have argued thus far, Mr. President, from 
the nature of the pretended laws of Kansas, and 
from the cruel and illegal severity with which 
they are executed. I shall draw my next argu- 
ment from the want of constitutional authority, 
on the part of the Legislature which enacted 
these laws. The report of the Kansas Investi- 
gating Committee of the House of Representa- 
tives, consisting of the evidence of witnesses, 
numbered by hundreds, and biassed against the 
conclusion at which the House of Representatives 
has arrived, has established the fact upon which 
I insisted in opening this debate on the 9th of 
April last, that the Legislature of Kansas was 
chosen, not by the people, but by an armed inva- 
sion from adjoining States, which seized the 
baUot-boxes, usurped the elective franchise, and 
by fraud and force organized a Government; 
thereby subverting the organic law and the 
authority of the United States. Sir, at another 
time, and under different circumstances, a single 
invader, after the manner adopted by Colonel 
William Walker in Nicaragua, might have 
entered the Territory of Kansas with an armed 
force, and established a successful usurpation 
there Let me suppose that he had done so, and 
had promulgated these identical statutes in the 
name of the Territory of Kansas, would you hold, 
would the Senate hold, would the President of 
the United States hold, that such a Government, 
thus established, was a legal one, and that 
statutes thus ordained were valid and obligato- 
ry ? That is the present case. It differs only 
in this : that in the case supposed there is a 
siugle conqueror, only one local and reckless 
usurper, while in the case of Kansas an asso- 
ciated band are the conquerors and usurpers. The 
Territorial Legislature of Kansas stands on the 
foundations of fraud and force. It attempts to 
draw over itself the organic law enacted in 1854, 
but it is equally subversive of the liberties of 
the people of Kansas, and of that organic law, 
and of the authority of the United States. The 
Legislature and Territorial Government of Kan- 
sas stand on no better footing than a coup d'etat, 



a revolution. When honorable Senators from the 
other side of this Chamber tell me that I am 
leading the people of Kansas into revolution, I 
fearlessly reply to them, that they have stood 
idly by, and 6een a revolution effected there. 
Doubtless, they have acted with a sincerity of 
purpose and patriotism equal to my own. They 
see the facts, and the tendency of events, in a 
light different from that in which these facts and 
transactions present themselves to me. They 
therefore insist upon maintaining that revolu- 
tion, and giving it the sanction of Congress, by 
authorizing the standing army of the United 
States to execute the laws which that revolution 
has promulgated. The House of Representatives, 
on the contrary, denounces the revolution, and 
stands upon the authority of the United Slates, 
and, for the purpose of putting an end to that 
revolution and restoring Federal authority, in- 
sists that these pretended laws shall not be exe- 
cuted. In this great controversy, I leave the ma- 
jority of the Senate, and take my stand by the 
side of the House of Representatives. 

You warn me, that if we do not recognise these 
revolutionary authorities in Kansas, the Terri- 
tory will be without an organized State at all, 
and will relapse into anarchy. The House of 
Representatives meets you boldly on that issue, 
and replies, that if there are not laws in force, 
exclusive .of these pretended statutes, adequate 
to the purposes of civil government in Kansas, 
they have invited you, in two separate bills, 
which they have sent up here, widely variant in 
character, but each adapted to the case, to pro- 
vide for the restoration of regular and constitu- 
tional authority in Kansas. One bill proposes 
to recognise and establish the State of Kansas, 
under the Topeka Constitution, and the other 
proposes to reorganize the Territorial Legisla- 
ture, with proper amendments of the organic 
law. Thus far, you have practically refused to 
accept either of these propositions. If, when 
Congress shall have adjourned, the result shall 
be that Kansas is left without the protection of 
adequate laws and civil authority, look you to 
that. The responsibility will not rest on me, nor 
on the House of Representatives. 

I desire, Mr. President, on this great occa- 
sion — perhaps the last one of full debate during 
the present session of Congress — to deliver my 
whole mind upon this important subject. I add, 
therefore, that the tendency and end — I will not 
say object — of the revolution which has been ef- 
fected in Kansas, which ha3 been effected by her 
conquerors, through the countenance and aid of 



12 



the President of the United States, are not of such 
a character as to reconcile me to that revolution. 
That end is the establishment of human slavery 
within the Territory of Kansas. If I should go 
with you and the majority of the Senate in emas- 
culating this army bill, as it came from the House 
of Representatives, I should thereby show that 
I was at least indifferent on so great an issue. 
Sir, I could never forgive myself hereafter, when 
reviewing the course of my public life, if I had 
assented to inflict upon even the present settlers 
of Kansas, few and poor, and scattered through 
its forests arid prairies, as they are, what I deem 
the mischiefs and evils of a system of compul- 
sory labor, excluding, as we know by experience 
that it always does, the intelligent labor of free 
men. 

But it is not merely on to-day and on this 
generation that I am looking. I cannot restrain 
my eyes from the effort, at least, to penetrate 
through a period of twenty-five years — of fifty 
years — of a hundred years — of even two hundred 
years — so far, at least, as a statesman's vision 
ought to reach beyond the horizon that screens 
the future from common observation. All along 
and through that dimly-explored vista, I see rising 
up before me hundreds of thousands, millions, 
even tens of millions, of countrymen, receiving 
their fortunes and fates, as they are being shaped 
by the action of the Congress of the United States, 
in this hour of languor, at the close of a weary 
day, near the end of a protracted and tedious ses- 
sion. I shall not, indeed, meet them here on the 
earth, but I shall meet them all on that day when 
I shall give up the final account of that steward- 
ship which my country has confided to me. If I 
were now to consent to such an act, with my 
opinions and convictions, the fruit of early patriot- 
ic and Christian teachings, matured by reading 
of history ; by observation in States where Free- 
dom flourishes, as well as in societies where 
Slavery is tolerated ; by experience throughout 
a life which already approaches the climacteric ; 
by travel in my own and foreign lands ; by re- 
flection under the discipline of conscience and 
the responsibilities of duty ; by social converse ; 
and by a thousand collisions of debate — I should 
be obliged, when that last day shall come to me, 
(as it must come to all,) to call upon the rocks 
and the mountains to fall upon me, and crush me 
and my name, detested then by myself, into that 
endless oblivion which is the most unwelcome 
of all evils, real or imaginary, to the thoughts of 
a generous and illuminated human mind. Pol- 
icy forbids me to do it. Justice forbids me to 



do it. Humanity forbids me to do it. And the 
Constitution of my country — wisest of all Con- 
stitutions — most equal of all Constitutions — most 
humane of all Constitutions which the inventive 
genius of man has ever framed — forbids me to 
do it. . 

1 nave arrived now, Mr. President, at another 
question much debated here, namely, whether the 
inhibition which is contained in the bill as it 
came from the House of Representatives, and to 
which the Senate objects, is germane to the bill If 
that inhibition really has the importance with 
which I have invested it, then the question whether 
it is germane or not is worthless and trivial. 

Sir, in an act of such high necessity as the re- 
sistance and suppression of revolution subversive 
of civil government and public liberty, questions 
of parliamentary form sink into insignificance. 
But the question is germane. It is a normal pro- 
vision, of a character identical with the bill itself. 
The bill proposes an appropriation to defray the 
expenses of the army of the United States for one 
year, and necessarily contemplates the character 
and nature of the service in which the army is to 
be employed. It is framed with such foresight as 
the House of Representatives can exercise of the 
places where the army shall be employed, whether 
in the States or in the Territories, or in foreign 
campaigns, and of the nature and character of its 
employments — whether training in camp, build- 
ing fortifications, suppressing Indian insurrec- 
tions, repelling invasions, or carrying the banner * 
of our stars and stripes in conquest over an ene- 
my's battalions in hostile countries. It is con- 
fessed that Congress, and not the President of 
the United States, has power to direct the desti- 
nation and employment of the army in all these 
respects. 

And, now, what does the provision propose ? 
Simply this : that while it leaves the discretion 
of the President free exercise to employ the army 
where he shall think fit, in maintaining Federal 
laws, and, consistently with existing statutes, the 
laws of every State in the Union, and of every 
Territory in the Union, he shall not do this one 
thing — employ that army in executing the pre- 
tended and obnoxious statutes of the usurpation 
in Kansas. On the point whether this inhibition 
is germane to the bill, you, Senators, think, that 
you are making an issue with the House of Rep- 
resentatives, on which, when you go down before 
the people, the Senate will stand and the House 
will fall. I know well the conservative power 
that is lodged in twelve millions of dollars, Span- 
ish milled dollars ; but I know also the virtue, the 



13 



conservative virtue, which resides iu the hearts 
and consciences of twenty- live millions of Ameri- 
can freemen. The people of the United States, in 
this csise, will never stop to ask whether the in- 
hibition was germane or not. They are not yet 
prepared to receive their own money back at your 
hands, on condition of the surrender of liberty or 
the denial of justice. But if I grant that the peo- 
ple will stand by you, and condemn the House 
of Representatives, still in that case I take my 
stand with the House of Representatives. The 
American people have a persevering way of cor- 
recting to-day their error of yesterday. When 
the temporary inconvenience which they shall 
have suffered from your act of withholding from 
them the twelve millions of dollars which ought 
to be disbursed to them through the operations 
of the army, shall have passed away, they will 
call you to account for the injustice which will 
have inflicted that injury, and will then vindi- 
cate their fidelity to Liberty and Justice, while 
sternly bestowing upon you the censure you have 
provoked. 

Whatever may be the decision, early or late, of 
the American people, the judgment now to be 
given will go for review to the tribunal of the 
civilized world. It needs little of either learning 
or foresight, to anticipate the decision of that 
tribunal, on the issue whether the Senate is right 
in using bayonets and gunpowder to execute 
unconstitutional and tyrannical laws, tending to 
carry Slavery into free Territories, or the House 
of Representatives is right in maintaining the 
Constitution and the universality of Freedom. 

The whole question of the propriety of the in- 
hibition hinges on the point whether, under the 
circumstances, it is necessary. I appeal on that 
point to the Senate itself, to the country, and to 
the world. Either the inhibition must be continued 
in the bill, and so take effect, or else the army 
will be employed to enforce these atrocious laws. 
Every other effort to defeat and to abrogate them 
has failed. This attempt is the last that can be 
made. It is therefore this remedy for the revo- 
lution in Kansas which we must adopt, or no 
remedy. I go, therefore, with the House of Rep- 
resentatives, for the inhibition which it proposes. 

You reply, that if the House of Representatives 
persevere, the bill will fail, and thus the ac- 
tion of the Government will be arrested. But 
although the House shall persevere in the right, 
the bill will not fail, and the action of the Gov- 
ernment will not be arrested, unless the Senate 
shall persevere in the wrong. If both shall perse- 
vere, and the action of* the Government shall be 



arrested, on whom will the responsibility fall ? 
Must the House necessarily surrender its own 
convictions, and adopt yours, in all cases, whether 
they are right or wrong ? If so, pray tell me Sena- 
tors, what is the use of a House of Representatives 
at all ? Sir, the Senate will find, if it shall assume 
the position of defiance against the House, that 
it has not weakened the strength of the House of 
Representatives, but perilled its own. 

By the letter of the Constitution, the House of 
Representatives has exclusive right to originate 
all bills for raising revenue. By custom, inher- 
ited from Great Britain, and unbroken since the 
adoption of the Federal Constitution, the House 
of Representatives, exclusively, originates all 
general appropriation bills. This exclusive right 
and custom of originating general appropriation 
bills involves at least an equal right, on the part 
of the House of Representatives, to limit or direct 
the application of the moneys appropriated. The 
House, in view of the revolution inaugurated in 
Kansas by the President, with the aid of the 
army of the United States, and maintained by the 
Senate, might lawfully, if in its discretion it 
should deem such a course expedient, refuse to 
appropriate any money whatever for the support 
of the army. The greater includes the less. The 
House may therefore attach the prohibition as a 
condition of the grant of supplies for the army. 
The honorable Senator from Maine [Mr. Fkssen- 
den] has sagely said, in the course of his excel- 
lent speech, that the House has, by reason of its 
constitution, a peculiar and superior fitness for 
passing on the question involved in this debate. 
Its members are fresh from the people, and they go 
hence directly, to render an account to the people 
of the administration of the National Treasury. 
We of the Senate are so far removed, by the dura- 
tion of our terms of Ottice, as practically to be in a 
measure irresponsible. The House of Represent- 
atives is constituted by direct election by the peo- 
ple themselves. We of the Senate are sent here 
by the Legislatures of the respective States. They 
are great political bodies, and justly represented 
here as such, to check, if need be, the too vola- 
tile action of the people through the House of 
Representatives. But they are corporations, 
! nevertheless, and the Senate is a body repre- 
i senting corporations. 

Moreover, the Senate, by force of its constitu- 
i tion as a council of the President, in appoint- 
i ments to office and in the conduct of foreign 
affairs, is more readily inclined towards combi- 
nation with the President, and of course to de- 
I pendence upon him, than the House of Repre- 



14 



eentatives. It is to the House of Representatives, 
therefore, that the people must look, and it is 
upon that House, and not upon the Senate, that 
the people must rely mainly for the rescue of 
public Liberty, if the time shall ever come 
•when that Liberty shall be endangered, with de- 
sign or otherwise, by the exercise of the Execu- 
tive power. 

Thus far, Mr. President, I have treated this 
subject as one involving only the interests of the 
people of the Territory of Kansas. But you will 
see at once, without any amplification on my part, 
that you are establishing, by way of precedent, 
a system of government for not merely that Ter- 
ritory, but all the Territories, present and future, 
within the United States. It is worth while to 
see what that system is. It is the system of 
popular sovereignty, founded on the abnegation of 
Congressional authority, attempted by the Kan- 
sas and Nebraska Act of 1854. But it is that 
system of popular sovereignty, with the principle 
of popular sovereignty left out, and that of Ex- 
ecutive power, exercised with fraud and armed 
force, substituted in its place. Since we have 
entered upon a career of territorial aggrandize- 
ment, as Rome, and Britain, and Spain did, re- 
spectively, we can look forward to no period 
when what we call Territories, but what they 
called Provinces or Colonies, will not constitute 
a considerable part of our dominion, and be a 
theatre for the exercise of cupidity and the dis- 
play of ambition. Let Congress now effectually 
resign the Territories to military control by the 
President, or by Generals appointed by him, and 
two more acts will bring this grand national 
drama of ours to its close. The first of those 
acts will be the subversion of Liberty in the 
remaining Territories; and then, the Rubicon 
easily passed, the second will be the establish- 
ment of an Empire on the ruins of the whole 
Republic. 

But how is the Government to be arrested, 
even if this army bill should fail, through your 
persevering dissent from the House of Represent- 
atives ? Is the army of the United States, indeed 
and essentially, a civil institution — a necessary 
and indispensable institution, in our republican 
system? On the contrary,-it is an exception, an 
anomaly, an aatagonistic institution, tolerated, 
but wisely and justly regarded with jealousy and 
apprehension. We maintain a standing army in 
time of war, to suppress Indian insurrections, or 
to repel foreign invasions; and we maintain the 
same standing army in time of peace, only be- 
cause it is wise in peace to be prepared for war. 



But, whether in peace or war, we maintain it not 
without some measure of hazard to constitution- 
al liberty. Happily, the Indian disturbances 
within our borders have been suppressed; and 
if they had not been, the smallest measure of 
gentleness and charity towards the decaying 
tribes would more effectually secure the blessings 
of peace, so far as they are concerned, than the 
employment of many legions. Happily, also, the 
dark cloud that seemed gathering over us from 
the East, when this session commenced in De- 
cember last, has been dispersed, and we have 
now a sure prospect of peace with all foreign 
nations for many years to come. The army of 
the United States is therefore immediately use- 
ful or necessary now only as a police, to execute 
municipal laws. If the founders of the Consti- 
tution had been told, that within seventy years 
from the day on which they laid its solid found- 
ations, and raised its majestic columns) a stand- 
ing army would have been found necessary and 
indispensable merely to execute municipal laws, 
they would have turned shuddering away from 
the massive despotism which they had erected. 

Sir, eleven days hence, Congress will adjourn, 
and it will come back again one hundred and 
eight days after that time. No serious disaster, 
nor even any great public inconvenience, can 
happen within that period. Congress will be 
here in ample time to provide, if it shall be 
necessary, for the public safety, for expelling 
Great Britain from Central America, for conquer- 
ing Cuba, and for bringing into subordination 
any insurrectionary Indian tribes. Everybody 
will know that every dollar we owe to contract- 
ors, purveyors, merchants, makers of gunpowder 
or muskets, or founders of cannon, as well as 
every dollar we owe to soldiers or officers, 
for pay or for rations, is guarantied by the 
national faith, and on that faith money can be 
raised without any considerable discount. 

And, now, what other inconveniences are to 
result from a failure to pass the army bill? We 
are told that law and order will be lost, and 
anarchy will prevail in the Territory of Kansas, 
if the army be not employed there to keep 
the peace, and execute the Territorial law*. 
Look, I pray you, through this report of the In- 
vestigating Committee, drawn out to the length 
of twelve hundred pages, filled with details of 
invasions, robberies, mobs, murders, and confla- 
grations, and toll me what anarchy could happen, 
in the absence of martial law, worse than the an- 
archy which has marked its establishment in 
the Territory? 



15 



Answer me still further, what measure of an- 
archy could reconcile, or ought to reconcile 
American citizens to a surrender of constitutional 
Liberty in any part of the Republic ? 

Answer me further, what is that measure of 
tranquillity and quiet that a republican people 
ought to seek, or can wisely enjoy ? It is not the 
dead quiet, the stagnant tranquillity of cowardly 
submission to usurpation and despotism, but it is 
just so much of peace, quiet, and tranquillity, as is 



consistent with the preservation of constitutional 
Liberty. It would be a hard alternative, but, if 
the Senate should insist on forcing on me, or on 
the people I represent, the choice between peace 
under despotism, or turbulence with Freedom, 
then I must say, promptly and fearlessly, give me' 
so much of safety as I can have, and yet remain 
a freeman, and keep all quiet and all safety 
beyond that for those who are willing to be 
slaves. 



n^-T\ 



\ 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 







: "KI 



>' 



-*T 



■ 



i-*£**^~* 



